From Chicken to...Dinosaur?

Renowned paleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct a dinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's taking living descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them to reactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to make a "Chickenosaurus".

Kind of cool.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html

buy his book and read it. it is a good book for sure!

I second the recommendation of his book, it's awesome

First pet dinosaurs, then Jurassic Park, and we all know how well that went.

Jurrasic Park here we come...ah cant wait to get a Velociraptor....wonder if i can keep it just like my OBT's?

I saw that I think it's amazing. But does that mean chickens will be able to chew meat?

Lucas339 said:

buy his book and read it. it is a good book for sure!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the recommendations! I'll look into getting that book and probably the Origin of the Species by Darwin. Still don't have that one yet and I think there was a good size read called Why Evolution is True or something like that. I'm also looking for a good read on genetics and adaptations like island gigantism and limitations on arthropod structure if anyone knows of any.

Doesn't look like they've brought any of the manipulated bird embryos to full term to know behavior and other data so who knows how the chickens will use these modifications. *shrug*

Origin of Species is a tough read IMO....for me. Im sure others like it but its written in old english so its a bit different.

on the whole jurassic park crap, all of Horners experiments are just that, experiments. He has to cull his animals before they hatch. Second, we don't have dinosaur DNA. They think they have found some red blood cells deep with in some bones but I have yet to hear if it is truely dino red blood cells or otherwise. There is alot of controversy right now on what they have exactly found. If they are red blood cells, who knows if they can get DNA from them. Not saying it isn't possible.

Jurassic park will never happen. Soon it is going to be hard to buy a anole lizard outside of your state. With all the reptile issues in the news, I doubt you will ever hear "first pet dinosaur released".

Mature red blood cells have no nuclei, therefor no DNA anyway.

And dinosaurs are just too old to contain intact DNA so that dream is just a dream until we identify what every single gene is responsible in higher organisms and master the art of putting together millions of bases one by one without error. Not gonna happen anytime soon.

Let's get the mammoths back first.

Yes, mammoths are fun. And seriously, would we WANT cloned dinosaurs running around?

the mammoth project is already underway.

and i will re-read that section of the book. it said something in regards to possibly being able to get DNA from that bone.

as for not being able to get DNA from material that old......know one really knows cause it hasn't been tested.

What hasn't been tested? Nucleic acids are not stable, they break apart easily even under perfect lab conditions sometimes (I know as I am a geneticist) and fossilized dinosaur bones are not ideal conditions unfortunately. Also for cloning, you need complete genomic DNA! You know how big that is in an advanced organism???

The main reason we still do not have a mammoth is that even perfectly frozen mammoths do not have unfragmented genomic DNA in their cells. And again this is very well preserved kilograms of soft tissue mind you.

This is why scientists are looking for frozen sperm cells, which are generally better protected against degradation and will have 50% of the required genetic material and may let us create mammoth/elephant hybrids.

here you go "geneticist" :http://www.sciencemag.org/content/257/5078/1933.short

not exactly sure what you do but just remember there is an entire feild of genetics dedicated to ancient DNA. i have one right above me as i type this. just because yours is breaking down in the lab doesn't mean everyone's is.

the former ideals on the shelf life of DNA were based on the shelf life of tissues and cells.

---------- Post added 10-26-2011 at 01:38 PM ----------

also give this a read

http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/1...lone-a-woolly-mammoth-in-the-next-five-years/

stupidest thing ive EVER heard. about as useless as thinking that capive breeding is a form of conservation.

Before attempting to 'correct' Naja, Lucas, you should make sure the "evidence" you cite actually refutes what Naja said. The articles you cited fail to do so.

With regard to blood cells, Naja is correct -- mature red blood cells have no cDNA to recover. Next, Naja pointed out that to clone an organism, intact DNA is required. Again, this is true. In his later post, he then pointed out that nucleic acid strands are fragile and degrade easily and the fossilization process dinosaur remains underwent is not ideal for DNA preservation. This is also true.

The first article you cited does not refute any of this. For starters, the fossilization process that occurs in amber is not the same as the process that dinosaur remains underwent. Furthermore, even with the fossilized termites, the article states that the DNA recovered was fragmented. Intact DNA was not recovered.

With regard to the question of mammoth cloning ... once again, Naja is correct that only DNA fragments have thus far been extracted successfully. Even though freezing proved to be a better preservation process with regards to retarding DNA degradation, breakdown still occurred. A supporting point for Naja that was made in the mammoth article.

The new technique developed by Wakayama mentioned in the article, while intriguing, has not yet been proven successful with material frozen for such an extreme length of time as a mammoth. And even with this new technique -- assuming the scientists are able to find suitable (read "intact" -- or darned close to it) DNA -- the key phrase is "hoping that this technique will provide the missing ingredient". The fact that we "could" have a mammoth birth in 5 or 6 yrs does not mean we will. (Heck I might win a multimillion dollar lotto in 5 or 6 yrs -- but I'm sure not going to bet the rent on it. )

By the way, at one point the article's author states:"I’m of the opinion, however, that the rebirth of an extinct species is really only a matter of time. We’ve seen how the Mammoth Genome Project at Penn State is hoping to create their own woolly by modifying African elephant DNA." This is an erroneous statement that no one writing for a science publication should be foolish enough to make. What Penn State is looking at doing is creating a mammoth-elephant hybrid. That is not the same thing as resurrecting an extinct species.

Jack Horner was a guest lecturer in my Paleontology class on Monday. Cool guy! He'll declare crazy things about dinosaurs because he likes to see people argue, that gets them to think about things and inspires them to research what they might not have otherwise.

pavel said:

Before attempting to 'correct' Naja, Lucas, you should make sure the "evidence" you cite actually refutes what Naja said. The articles you cited fail to do so.

With regard to blood cells, Naja is correct -- mature red blood cells have no cDNA to recover. Next, Naja pointed out that to clone an organism, intact DNA is required. Again, this is true. In his later post, he then pointed out that nucleic acid strands are fragile and degrade easily and the fossilization process dinosaur remains underwent is not ideal for DNA preservation. This is also true.

The first article you cited does not refute any of this. For starters, the fossilization process that occurs in amber is not the same as the process that dinosaur remains underwent. Furthermore, even with the fossilized termites, the article states that the DNA recovered was fragmented. Intact DNA was not recovered.

With regard to the question of mammoth cloning ... once again, Naja is correct that only DNA fragments have thus far been extracted successfully. Even though freezing proved to be a better preservation process with regards to retarding DNA degradation, breakdown still occurred. A supporting point for Naja that was made in the mammoth article.

The new technique developed by Wakayama mentioned in the article, while intriguing, has not yet been proven successful with material frozen for such an extreme length of time as a mammoth. And even with this new technique -- assuming the scientists are able to find suitable (read "intact" -- or darned close to it) DNA -- the key phrase is "hoping that this technique will provide the missing ingredient". The fact that we "could" have a mammoth birth in 5 or 6 yrs does not mean we will. (Heck I might win a multimillion dollar lotto in 5 or 6 yrs -- but I'm sure not going to bet the rent on it. )

By the way, at one point the article's author states:"I’m of the opinion, however, that the rebirth of an extinct species is really only a matter of time. We’ve seen how the Mammoth Genome Project at Penn State is hoping to create their own woolly by modifying African elephant DNA." This is an erroneous statement that no one writing for a science publication should be foolish enough to make. What Penn State is looking at doing is creating a mammoth-elephant hybrid. That is not the same thing as resurrecting an extinct species.

Click to expand...

I thought I have explained myself sufficiently but the above post did a great job as well.

Both of the articles you have given (and only one is a peer reviewed scientific article, that is why you have the dubious statements in the second one) prove my points so thanks for that.

Najakeeper's objection was "Nucleic acids are not stable, they break apart easily even under perfect lab conditions sometimes (I know as I am a geneticist) and fossilized dinosaur bones are not ideal conditions unfortunately"

here is a paper where the DNA was able to be extracted from bonesthat are 50,000 years old.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/3/739.full.pdf+html

the shows that DNA can be squenced from old fossilized material. my point here was that we have yet to have genetic containing material as old as dino bones to test if DNA can be squenced from material this old. will it be fragmented....yes. never said it would be perfect. would it be enough to clone a dino. it all depends on how much is actually squenced. new methodologies are coming out all the time for squencing. if we get enough for pholygenetic assays we might be able to find the gaps and fill them if there is enough shared material with extant species.

as for the mammoth project. the acticle is far from "dubious". the article quotes several real scientist working on the project in japan. if you were to research them and look at their work, you would see that the statments made in the article are in fact true. not the five year plan but the work they described is being done. but skip that.....ill do the work for you.

here is an article in nature which is pier reviewed. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7220/full/456330a.html)

"Researchers were quick to exploit the new possibilities. Only months after the 454 technology became available, it was applied to mammoth genomics in a paper5 that reported 13 million base pairs of sequence — about 1,000 times more than were covered in the first ancient-genomics study with Sanger sequencing6. In that paper5, published in January 2006, the authors also announced their plan to sequence the mammoth genome to completion. Miller and colleagues1 now describe about 70% of the mammoth genome, and so go a long way to achieving that goal."

the quote didn't copy over to well so the numbers in the above quote are for links to the papers they are citing.

"The high percentage of endogenous DNA recoverable from this single mammoth would allow for completion of its genome, unleashing the field of paleogenomics."

the above is a quote from the group working on the project that was published in science....another piered review journal (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5759/392.full). the actual scientist. keep in mind that the article above is from 2006. they are probably closer now.

so, the elephant/wholly hybrid. the theory on that doesn't have anything to do with the animals themselves. it is more for the genetics behind it. taking the hybrid ones genetics and using them for the next hybrid and so on until you have what you think is "pure". i thought this had already been started. i saw a program shortly after the discovery of the full mammoth in the permafrost that said they were already working on it. the scientist on the program said it would take about 10 generations to be close to pure. yes it will never be pure with this method but we might not even need it.

both of you have just posted your opinions. neither have posted any pier reviewed (i will use that term b/c naja likes it so much) articles refuting any of the points i made.

the facts:

we aren't there yet with the mammoth project but are getting close....hence my point "that project is already underway"
we have not had genetic material as old as dino bones to test if the extractions could be done.....hence my other point "as for not being able to get DNA from material that old......know one really knows cause it hasn't been tested." if you disagree with that, show me an article where it was tested.

if you'd like more evidence for the above, i suggest you explore google scholar or you local library.

This is getting a bit tiring now.

Tell me mate, do you understand the difference between 600-50,000 years and 65,000,000 years?

Do you understand the difference between shredded DNA (which is essentially a few bases attached together) and intact genomic DNA?

Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "break apart"?

Do you understand how cloning works? (both DNA cloning and organism cloning)

Let's say "broken apart" DNA fragments can be isolated from Dinosaur bones exactly as explained in the above Turkish paper (even though it is clearly explained in the video at the start of this topic that it is not possible to do so!), and let's assume that we have all the fragments necessary to put together to create a stable genomic DNA, we still can not do this as we have no idea in which order the pieces should be attached together. We have no idea about the chromosome structure, no idea about the genes and their sequences, no idea about the way their introns and extrons are arranged etc. etc. and we will not be able to learn any of these!

I hate it when people think genetics is like a 20 piece children's puzzle! Believe me, it is not!

Sorry, Lucas. I'm a geneticist too, and Najakeeper is really right about this one. Purified bacterial plasmid DNA deep-frozen in a mildly alkaline buffer may last indefinitely, but eukaryotic genomic DNA is a whole other story.